Delhi High Court
Sh. Dev Mani Yadav & Ors. vs The Central Administrative ... on 5 September, 2008
Author: J.R. Midha
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.3671/1997
Reserved on: 5th August, 2008
% Date of Decision: 5th September, 2008
1. Sh. Dev Mani Yadav
S/o Sh. Ram Dass Yadav
R/o H.No. 9271, Pinjra Pole Gaushala,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110006
2. Sh. A.S. Bhatnagar
S/o Late Sh. J.S. Bhatnagar,
R/o E.P.T.-14, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi.
3. Sh. Awaran Singh
S/o Sh. Hoti Lal
R/o B-185, Rajbir Colony
Ghauroli Extension,
Delhi-110096.
4. Sh. D.S. Bedi
S/o Sh. G.S. Bedi
R/o B-301/B, Sector-19,
Noida, U.P.
5. Sh. Jawahar Lal
S/o Late Gian Chand
6. Sh. N.K. Bhanot
S/o Sh. R.C. Bhanot
R/o J-7/131, Rajouri Garden
New Delhi.
7. Sh. Sabir Ali
S/o Sh. Sajjad Ali
R/o B-150, Abdul Fazal Enclave,
Part-II, Okhla,
New Delhi-110025
8. Sh. Sukhbir Singh
S/o Sh. Gokal Prasad
R/o B-216, Nandgram
Ghaziabad, U.P.
WP(C) No.3671/1997 Page 1 of 6
9. Sh. P.B. Srinivasan,
S/o Sh. S. Padamanabhan
R/o 6/71, WEA, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
10. Sh. Ravi Shankar
S/o Jagdev Ram
R/o C-7/306B, Keshavpuram,
Delhi-110035 ...Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sant Lal, Adv.
Versus
1. The Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench)
Through its Registrar,
Faridkot House,
Copernicus Road,
New Delhi-110001
2. Union of India
Through the Secretary
Ministry of Communications
Deptt. of Telecom
Sanchar Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
3. The Chief General Manager,
Northern Telecom Region,
(Telecom Accounts), D.T.O. Building,
Prasad Nagar,
New Delhi-110005
4. The Chief Superintendent, C.T.O.
Eastern Court,
New Delhi-110050 ...Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Bharadwaj, Adv.
WP(C) No.3671/1997 Page 2 of 6
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
J.R. MIDHA, J.
The Petitioner has assailed an order dated 11th April 1997 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dismissing the
OA.
The Petitioners were employed as Assistant Superintendent
Telegraph Traffic (later on designated as Junior Telecom Officers) under
the Chief General Manager, Northern Telecom Region, New Delhi. The
pay scale of the Petitioners was revised vide order dated 8th April 1992
and the revision was made effective from 1st April 1991. The matter was
re-examined and vide order dated 20th June 1994, the revised scale was
made effective from 1st January 1986. The Petitioners were thus entitled
to the arrears of pay. The Respondents gave the option to the Petitioners
to receive the arrears of pay in cash or by transfer to their GPF accounts
or partly in cash and partly by transfer to their GPF accounts. The
Department of Personnel and Training issued an OM dated 12th
November 1990 to the effect that in respect of the arrears credited to the
GPF accounts, the interest on the arrears would also be payable with
effect from 1st May 1992.
The Petitioners partly received the arrears of pay in cash and
partly by transfer to their GPF accounts. The detail of the payment of
arrears of pay received by the Petitioners is as under:-
S. Name Amount of GPF A/c Amount Amount
No Arrears (Rs.) No. Transferred paid in cash
to GPF A/c
1. Sh. Dev Mani Yadav 51,909.00 0771309465 23,400/- 28,509/-
2. Sh. A.S. Bhatnagar 51,925.00 425 30,000/- 21,925/-
3. Sh. Awaran Singh 51,923.00 452 40,000/- 11,923/-
4. Sh. D.S. Bedi 51,869.00 464 24,700/- 27,169/-
5. Sh. N.K. Bhanot 40,405.00 479 20,000/- 20,405/-
6. Sh. Sabir Ali 44,603.00 488 27,600/- 17,003/-
7. Sh. Sukhbir Ali 51,886.00 492 14,400/- 37,486/-
8. Sh. Jawahar Lal 09,451.00 476 05,000/- 04,451/-
9. Sh. Ravi Shankar 14,140.00 0771309 Nil 14,140/-
10. Sh. P.B. Srinivasan 38,060.00 - Nil 38,060/-
The Petitioners are demanding interest on the part arrears of pay
received by them in cash at the same rate as has been given in respect of
part arrears transferred to their GPF accounts. The case of the
Petitioners is that the decision of the Respondents to pay interest only in
respect of the part arrears transferred to GPF account is arbitrary and
discriminatory.
We do not find any merit in the contention of the Petitioners.
Firstly, the Petitioners have no right to the interest on the arrears of pay.
The Respondents revised the pay scales of the Petitioners and gave effect
to the said revision with retrospective effect. The right to the arrears of
pay came into existence in the year 1992/94. Merely because the
Respondents offered to pay interest on the amount kept in GPF account
would not create any right to claim the interest on the arrears received in
cash.
Secondly, the non-payment of interest on the arrears of pay
received in cash is not arbitrary and discriminatory merely because the
Respondents have given interest on the part arrears transferred to GPF
account. According to the Respondents, they had offered to pay interest
on the amount transferred in GPF account because amount so transferred
would remain with the Respondents and, therefore, the immediate
liability of making the payment would not arise. Thirdly, the
Respondents also wanted to promote the savings by the employees. We
see reason in the said submission and do not find any discrimination in
non-payment of interest on the part arrears of pay received in cash by the
Petitioners.
We may also note that the Petitioners could have transferred the
entire arrears of pay to their GPF account to get the interest. They had
the option of transferring the entire arrears of pay to the GPF account.
The Petitioners were well aware of the options given to them. The
Petitioners voluntarily chose to transfer part arrears of pay in GPF
account and to receive the balance in cash.
No case whatsoever is made out for entitlement of interest on the
part arrears of pay received by the Petitioners in cash.
There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed.
(J.R. MIDHA)
JUDGE
(MADAN B. LOKUR)
JUDGE
September 5, 2008
aj
